*1 (Defendant), MJP, Appellant Wyoming,
The STATE of Appellee
No. C-84-7. Wyoming.
Supreme Court 2, 1985. Munker, D. Public Defend-
Leonard er, McClain, Appellate Coun- and. Martin J. sel, Program, Wyoming Public Defender appellant. McClintock, Gen., Atty. A. Gerald A. G. Gen., Stack, Atty. Ren- Deputy John W. Gen., neisen, Atty. Sylvia Lee Sr. Asst. Gen., Hackl, Atty. appellee. Asst. THOMAS, C.J., ROONEY, Before JJ., CARDINE, GUTH BROWN RIE, Justice, Retired.* THOMAS, Chief Justice. to decide we are asked may require a
whether a
prosecutor to
crimes with
hearing evidence
not been
which the defendant has
*
himself,
J.,
ROSE, J.,
GUTHRIE,
January
court entered
recused
Retired,
assigned pursuant
to order of the
*2
plea
person
the
pursuant
agreement
“Any
to a
with
knowingly taking immod-
est,
treating
State.
with
issue we must
immoral or indecent liberties with
proceeding
deal with
claim that
any
such
knowingly
child or
causing or en-
concept
violates the
of fundamental
couraging
fair-
any
to
child
cause or encour-
process
ness
the
clause.
embodied
due
age another child to commit
any
with him
There
an issue
also is
abuse
immoral or
guilty
indecent act is
of a
by
of
the
court in
trial
sentenc-
felony,
upon
conviction shall be fined
ing. We conclude that the district court
less
than one hundred dollars
powers
respect
not exceed its
with
to
($100.00) nor more than one thousand
required
the evidence it
the
($1,000.00)
imprisoned
dollars
hearing,
that there
no
of
was
violation
penitentiary
(10)
not more than ten
concept
the
fundamental
fairness
years, or both.”
claimed. We also can discern no abuse
being
After
bound
to
over
the district court
discretion in the
affirm
We
for
proceedings by
further
County
and sentence.
Campbell County,
Court of
MJP entered a
of Appellant
the Brief
the issues are
plea
guilty
charge
pending
articulated as follows:
against
agreement
A plea
him.
was made
“1. Whether the district court exceeded pursuant to
agreed
which
State
not to
prosecutor
its
in ordering a
in a
charges
file
against
incest
the appellant in
sentencing hearing
evidence
exchange
plea
guilty
to the inde-
of other crimes with which the defendant
cent
charge.
charges,
liberties
The incest
charged pursuant
plea
had not been
to a
according to the
arrange-
discussion of the
agreement.
arraignment,
ment at
would have related to
proceedings employed
Whether the
a different victim
a different
incident.
“2.
during
sentencing hearing
violated
came
When
case first
on for sentenc-
fairness,
the concept of fundamental
ing, the State
it had
indicated
no evidence
is embodied in the due
present.
The defense also offered no
clause.
other
person-
evidence
than the defendant’s
sentencing judge
“3.
Whether
al
statement
allocution. When the
sentencing Ap-
abused his discretion in
incarceration,
argued
however,
pellant.”
the court asked
if
the State MJP had been
Wyoming
Appel-
prosecution
State of
in its Brief of
other
threatened with
for three
differently:
lee states the issues somewhat
against
acts
his own children.
When
prosecutor
responded affirmatively,
“I. DID THE TRIAL COURT EXCEED
proof
if
was
those
court asked
REQUESTING
ITS AUTHORITY IN
Upon
response
THAT
crimes.
affirmative
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT IN-
prosecutor, the
BE
from the
court decided
FORMATION
PRESENTED DUR-
or-
THE
needed
hear further evidence and
ING
SENTENCING HEARING?
further
At
dered a
“II. DID THE SENTENCING PRO-
proceeding, a
worker
a child
social
CEEDING COMPORT
ALL RE-
WITH
family therapist
were called as wit-
QUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS?
witnesses
nesses. These two
testified
“HI. DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE
daugh-
with
about their interviews
MJP’s
ITS DISCRETION IN SENTENCING
by
ters and both were cross-examined
APPELLANT TO A TERM OF SEVEN
MJP’s counsel. This evidence indicated
TO TEN YEARS IN THE WYOMING
to which the State
that the
crimes
STATE PENITENTIARY?”
been
had alluded
fact had
committed
immodest,
taking
MJP was
with
against
daughters of MJP.
immoral or indecent liberties with a minor
argues
requirement of the
14-3-105,
(De-
that the
violation of
W.S.1977
§
evidence
Replacement).
of additional
cember 1978
That statute
submission
discre-
provides
prosecutor’s
infringement
as follows:
HH relevant It needs to in- consider factors. sur-
form itself about the circumstances Arch B. BLANTON and Bertha F. (Defendants), rounding the offense also facts Blanton, Appellants accused. court Hall; Ralph Casper Concrete proceed- connection with this (Defendants), Company ing, none of the constitu- rights of were tional violated. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE COR- respect to the claim of abuse With PORATION, corporate capacity, in its sentencing, we note that receiver the Western National persuade nothing
there is in this record to Bank, Appellee the trial court could No. 84-263. reasonably as it did. The sen conclude tence within the lawful limits *4 Supreme Court of Wyoming. is no error of law under the circumstances. State, supra, eases Aldrich cited therein. and sentence is affirmed.
GUTHRIE, Justice, Retired, concurring dissenting part. result
I opinion concur the result of this but portion or part
dissent from that thereof appellant’s treats and discusses first Appellant
asserted issue. cannot
raise his first contention not made objections proper presented this
question to the trial court. He does not in
attempt
contend or
brief
to demonstrate
Hopkinson
plain
this involves
error.
cert. denied
S.Ct.
(1983), and cited authorities therein. Ab error, plain
sent it well recognized supreme not the proper forum question which to raise a constitutional Apodaca
for the first time. proper necessary
Since neither nor question, this decide State, Wyo.,
dicta. Felske v.